"Catch1. If in doubt, the pass is incomplete vs. the ball caught & then fumbled. The act of making a catch is a process that includes maintaining firm control of the ball throughout the entire act. The receiver must have the opportunity to perform a second act (i.e. dive to pylon, possess & turn up field) in order to rule catch.2. If a player has control of the ball but, in the act of making the catch, comes to the ground & loses control, it is incomplete. The catch must survive the contact with the ground. 3. If he is upright & immediately hit, he must maintain control of the ball or it is an incomplete pass."

#3 does not apply.

#2. The catch did not survive contact with the ground, but A did not "come to the ground" "in the act of making the catch" either.

So maybe #1 applies. The receiver had the opportunity to perform a second act, i.e. dive to the end zone. The ball was then lost in a "third" act, after the plane was broken and the TD scored.

I'm still saying incomplete. "The act of making a catch is a process that includes maintaining firm control of the ball throughout the entire act." And he didn't. He clearly lost control when he hit the ground.

I am nominally a Browns fan, but since they have decided to field a semi-pro team, and I saw Roethlisberger play a couple of times in HS and college, I am casually a Stillers fan. (Which I've been told is the correct Pittsburghese pronunciation.)

Maybe it was my viewing angle, but it looked the same in both real time and slow motion. A 4 step sequence where; Receiver 1. possessed the live ball in flight, 2. Touched the ground (in the field of play) with his knee, 3. twisted his body and dove for the goal line, 4. Which the ball crossed BEFORE touching the ground, where TOTAL possession is questionable.

In my world, where the ball was (in relation to the goal line) when his knee hit the ground (and he maintained possession) would be the succeeding spot - likely short of the goal. In the NFL world, I'm only a spectator with an inconsequential opinion.

Thanks ,refjeff, for your response. IMHO, the play would have became dead in NFHS when the receiver's knee touched down in the field of play while he had possession of the ball that had yet to break the EZ = Steeler's ball inside the one. Everything after that would be dead. NFL requires "down by contact" so their play didn't end until the ball was jarred loose by planet Earth.

Sorry to hear about your Browns . In my daze of youth ('50s) they were the arch enemy of my New York Football Giants (Patriots & AFL had yet to be invented) and matchups between Jim Brown and Giant's Sam Huff. Both Big Ben and Little Ben (Harrison-23rd president) were Miami (Ohio) alum. I have a feeling that Jan. 21 may bring us a rematch at the frozen tundra of Foxboro .

Thanks ,refjeff, for your response. IMHO, the play would have became dead in NFHS when the receiver's knee touched down in the field of play while he had possession of the ball that had yet to break the EZ = Steeler's ball inside the one. Everything after that would be dead. NFL requires "down by contact" so their play didn't end until the ball was jarred loose by planet Earth.

Sorry to hear about your Browns . In my daze of youth ('50s) they were the arch enemy of my New York Football Giants (Patriots & AFL had yet to be invented) and matchups between Jim Brown and Giant's Sam Huff.

That explains the flickering beams of light flashing behind the newer clouds, being a Giant fan is forever, whether you realize it or not. Alas, Giant Stadium will remain dark after the regular season ends this year, and very possibly Foxboro will be the last, one of two, "home fields" to stay lit.

Under Fed rules, I have a completed pass and down at the half-yard line.

"Double-action" plays such as this are one of the toughest types of judgments we have to make during real time. The stretch is irrelevant, but it takes lots of experience (and visual training) to get these calls right on a consistent basis.

Under Fed rules, I have a completed pass and down at the half-yard line.

"Double-action" plays such as this are one of the toughest types of judgments we have to make during real time. The stretch is irrelevant, but it takes lots of experience (and visual training) to get these calls right on a consistent basis.

Fed rule book also has the words "maintaining control" as part of the catch definition. The survive the ground philosophy is a great way to consistently apply the rule. If he had complete control of the ball he would have maintained it through that contact. Based on the fact the ball came loose when he hit the ground and then the ball hit the ground this would be incomplete in HS as well by the most common philosophy. Being HS though there are a lot of different and competing philosophies.

The other comment I'll make though is in this case it's extremely unlikely the naked eye on the field sees the movement of this ball real time. This would likely be ruled a catch on the field just like it was by the NFL guy. This is a great example where replay forces the officials to get way too technical since the evidence is extremely clear.

The other comment I'll make though is in this case it's extremely unlikely the naked eye on the field sees the movement of this ball real time.

So let's make the question a bit simpler. If on this same play the ball bounced up and away as the player then ball hit the ground, instead of being pinned between the ground and his chest then in his hands, what would we have under NFHS rules?

« Last Edit: December 19, 2017, 03:42:53 PM by NVFOA_Ump »

Logged

It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

So let's make the question a bit simpler. If on this same play the ball bounced up and away as the player then ball hit the ground, instead of being pinned between the ground and his chest then in his hands, what we have under NFHS rules?

Incomplete pass because he obviously didn't "maintain control" (direct quote from catch definition) of the ball to have a catch. This philosophy makes our calls much more consistent and easy to explain.

2-4-1 tells us: In order to complete a "Catch" of the football, a player must establish "Possession" of the football.2-34-1 tells us: In order to establish "Possession" of the football, a player must "Catch" the football.

Which came first? The Chicken or the Egg?

Another type of Rules book, written by some dude name Webster, defines this as circularity.

Actually, Ole Webster can be very helpful with this. First, using the definition of catch, we can state it another way: "A catch is the act of establishing player CONTROL of a live ball in flight. So, in order to catch it, he must control it.

Then the 2-34-1 definition of player possession makes sense, because a ball in player possession is a ball that is still being controlled by the player, after the initial control of the catch...

I understand that you then have to define control, but once again, Webster is very beneficial. Webster defines control as the ability to manage an object, in this case a football.

So, the definition of a catch then becomes, "A catch is the act of establishing an ability to manage a live ball in flight."2-34-1 becomes, "A ball in player possession is a live ball managed (or really, 'that is continued to be managed) by a player after that player has initially managed the ball."

What does "going to the ground mean"? It seems an absurd question, but I'm wondering if that now needs to be defined as well. He has possession of the ball when his knee touches the ground. To me, in high school and college, he's down there short of the end zone with a completed catch. He's on the ground with possession of the ball. But in the NFL, obviously, he's not down (as in dead ball) yet. But does having his knee touching the ground constitute him having gone to the ground? I think you can reasonably say that it does. He's (at least partially) on the ground when he makes another move to extend the ball over the goal line. But then -- before crashing COMPLETELY to the ground -- he loses the ball. So does one knee on the ground constitute having gone to the ground.

Actually, Ole Webster can be very helpful with this. First, using the definition of catch, we can state it another way: "A catch is the act of establishing player CONTROL of a live ball in flight. So, in order to catch it, he must control it.

Then the 2-34-1 definition of player possession makes sense, because a ball in player possession is a ball that is still being controlled by the player, after the initial control of the catch...

I understand that you then have to define control, but once again, Webster is very beneficial. Webster defines control as the ability to manage an object, in this case a football.

So, the definition of a catch then becomes, "A catch is the act of establishing an ability to manage a live ball in flight."2-34-1 becomes, "A ball in player possession is a live ball managed (or really, 'that is continued to be managed) by a player after that player has initially managed the ball."

Clear as mud....

Webster never played football, I don't think he ever even tried out. Something that might help, Rule 2 is where you can find "football" related definitions.

Something that may yet be further considered, the old adage, "Would you rule the same at the 50 yard line as you do the goal line" may be where the next revision should focus. Considering, when certain things happen at the goal line/sideline, the ball becomes dead (the lights go out). Not so at the 50 yard line, often the lights stay on and play continues.

Fed rule book also has the words "maintaining control" as part of the catch definition. The survive the ground philosophy is a great way to consistently apply the rule. If he had complete control of the ball he would have maintained it through that contact. Based on the fact the ball came loose when he hit the ground and then the ball hit the ground this would be incomplete in HS as well by the most common philosophy. Being HS though there are a lot of different and competing philosophies.

I understand your reasoning Magician, for what it's worth, I think the play is over before it gets to all that. The ball is in the possession of the receiver when his knee touches the ground. I would submit at that point he HAS completed the catch. He is down at that spot and the play is over.

Incomplete pass because he obviously didn't "maintain control" (direct quote from catch definition) of the ball to have a catch. This philosophy makes our calls much more consistent and easy to explain.

Good point Brian, except, and I'm not saying you're interpretation is wrong, But... unfortunately the word "Control" does not appear anywhere in the NFHS definition of "Catch!"

Recent attempts to add the word "Control" to correct the circularity issue between the definition of "Catch" and the definition of "Possession" have failed.

Webster never played football, I don't think he ever even tried out. Something that might help, Rule 2 is where you can find "football" related definitions.

Something that may yet be further considered, the old adage, "Would you rule the same at the 50 yard line as you do the goal line" may be where the next revision should focus. Considering, when certain things happen at the goal line/sideline, the ball becomes dead (the lights go out). Not so at the 50 yard line, often the lights stay on and play continues.

While Webster may not have known much of anything about football, he did have a commanding grasp of the English language. What I have discovered in my career as a public speaker is that if one is having trouble understanding the meaning of a particular word, sometimes another word used to define that word may be understood more clearly. This is the case with possession. I don’t think the definitions of catch and possession are circular at all. Both citations are saying the same thing. To catch a ball is to possess a ball, and to possess a ball is to possess it. The question is what does it mean to possess a ball? According to this master of the English language, to possess it means to control it.

To catch a ball is to possess a ball, and to possess a ball is to possess it. The question is what does it mean to possess a ball? According to this master of the English language, to possess it means to control it.

I would agree with Mr. Webster's assessment. To carry the word relationship a step further, "control" is defined as, "To exercise a directing, restraining or governing influence over". Unfortunately, what none of these definitions relates to is a required duration, that is until the NFL added their own concept of "surviving the ground", and even that description is in practice, unfortunately, subject to interpretation.

Where either the goal line, or sideline (becoming OOB) is involved that duration is instantaneous; "Break the plane of the goal" or step on the line, the "lights go out" and what happens thereafter happens to a dead ball, immediately. In contrast, "at the 50 yard line" play continues (the lights stay on) and all sorts of things may happen.

NFHS 2-4 requires ESTABLISHING player possession and FIRST contacting the ground in bounds (which includes the End Zones) WHILE maintaining possession of the ball...".

Sounds like, when "a player ESTABLISHES possession, FIRST touches the ground in-bounds, while MAINTAINING possession, we have a CATCH, what happens IMMEDIATELY after that depends on whether the ball remains alive, or becomes dead by rule.